Re: dhw--Epistemological Framework (Humans)

by dhw, Saturday, January 15, 2011, 12:51 (5060 days ago) @ xeno6696

MATT: (12 January at 02.16): Before I continue we should enumerate what I consider knowledge, and my hierarchy of rank. 
There follows a list of definitions, with what you call "transferable knowledge" in pole position (you define this as "a final state of information that has been interpreted, and can be verified by an outside source").-MATT (13 January at 22.32): "The only knowledge that exists is that we know nothing." This kind of skepticism underpins everything I do here on this forum. -If we know nothing, why did you enumerate what you consider to be knowledge? This list was the basis of the discussion you said you had been "wanting to have with everyone on this forum". Now you tell us there is no knowledge, in which case what is it you wanted to discuss? -In my response to your list, I wrote in bold:
"It could be argued that there is no such thing as knowledge, in which case the discussion ends here." -However, I also offered an alternative to universal scepticism: "Or we can adopt a commonsense approach and agree that certain things can be known ... but then we must agree on a criterion." I proposed one through the following (tentative) definition: "knowledge is possession of information that is accepted as being true by all those who are aware of it." I applied this definition to your categories of knowledge, and found that it fitted your "transferable" variety, as well as the technological examples I had given earlier. In my comments on your list, I also questioned your concept of validity, and attempted to draw the vital distinction between knowledge and belief.-If you genuinely want to discuss the "epistemological framework", please decide what level you want to argue on, but I really don't see the point of inviting us to consider your personal definitions of knowledge and then telling us knowledge doesn't exist. I have the breathalyzer at the ready!